06
opINIoNS | THE SIGNAL
Occupy Wall Street exposes police state in its infancy
MILeS KeeNLySIde opinions editor
The protesters of the Occupy Wall Street movement took to the streets to draw attention to corporate greed and the uneven distribution of wealth in the United States. In the end most media attention they got wasn’t for their economic messages, but for the extreme treatment that they suffered at the hands and boots of the police. If the protesters can’t expose corruption in the highest echelons of the banking system, perhaps they can expose the much more pressing and perhaps frightening development in the United States: The extreme militarization and illegal tactics of the police in the United States. Over the years, the escalation of the “War on Drugs” has lead to increasing number of police stations across the country to begin training their officers in the use of more sophisticated weaponry and tactics. Due to fear mongering on all levels of government, the United States citizenry has sat silent over the years, believing that the increasing military style presence of the police all around them was for their own protection. So when I show up to a peaceful protest in my hometown of Atlanta only to have it broken up by what I could only describe as black-clad, club wielding storm troopers, I begin to worry. So in this, our beautiful “land of the free”, what are the freedoms that we hold so dear? Our freedom of speech is threatened. The government is voting on things like SOPA and Net Neutrality in order to limit our access to information online. Our freedom of press is limited. Media conglomerates control our media, and use their influence to seek private gains. Our freedom of religion is suppressed. Muslims in our nation are treated as outsiders and terrorists. And now we finally know that our greatest strength, our freedom to peaceful assembly is being slowly chipped away. Overseas, we condemn the use of force against peaceful protesters. When demonstrations break out in the middle east, the White
House is quick to hold a press conference where they “urge” the leaders of the country to “use restraint” when dealing with the protesters. At home, our police are using tactics and weaponry that our Marines in Iraq are prohibited from using on peaceful demonstrators. In many countries, police are unarmed and drive highly visible vehicles painted in reflective paint. They wear reflective vests and are trained to be approachable and friendly so that they can better serve the citizens in their area. Now consider the police here in Atlanta. They dress in all black with a firearm on their hip. They drive supercharged cars with dark paintjobs and black tinted windows. I don’t know about you, but the police officers here in Atlanta don’t look very approachable to me; they look more like they are about to invade Poland. In Oakland, Marine Scott Olsen received brain damage and was hospitalized after being struck in the head with a “less than lethal” 40mm tear gas projectile at the Occupy Oakland protest. Do you know why the police refer to them as “less than lethal” weapons? They are not legally allowed to call them “non-lethal” weapons because these weapons can still kill you. Or how about the elderly woman who was pepper sprayed in the face at Occupy Seattle? Or the students who where seated peacefully with interlocked arms who were pepper sprayed by an officer with such a casual swagger that it became an internet meme? When will it alarm people that the police are so ready to use these weapons against demonstrators? When the police are so ready to use these weapons on peaceful demonstrators, they are not serving or protecting our interests. Our media is even actively coming to the defense of the police and the tactics being used. Fox News has accused Occupy movements of running “rape camps” and hiding “weapons caches” in parks. A demonized movement is an easily suppressed movement. Megyn Kelly came to the defense of police officers using pepper spray by saying it is “essentially” a food product. The complacency of the media when it comes to the clearly coordinated actions of the police is worrying. So next time you are driving along as a law abiding citizen and you get that twinge of fear when you see the dark police cruiser glide up behind you, ask yourself this: What has gone wrong when you fear the ones who are meant to protect you?
DISCLAIMER Opinions and Letters to the Editor expressed in The Signal are the opinions of the writers and readers. It does not reflect the opinions of The Signal. The Signal reserves the right to modify and/or reject letters at the discretion of the editorial staff.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011
Letter to the editor
“Personhood” defeated
During the last election, Mississippi voters defeated a ballot initiative known as the “Personhood Amendment” or Initiative 26. This initiative attempted to make an amendment to Mississippi’s state constitution that said life begins at fertilization of the egg. 58 percent of Mississippians voted against the bill in a state with a long history of prolife sentiment and legislation. The initiative, which supporters thought would challenge nationwide abortion laws and rights, attempted to establish very general legislation in an effort to make it nearly impossible for a woman to have an abortion. It not only would have accomplished this but it could have suppressed women’s ability to gain certain types of birth control, fertility treatment and fertilization counseling. While it was defeated in Mississippi many are fearful that a more succinct and less sweeping form of the initiative may emerge, making it more palatable for voters in other states. Thankfully, Mississippi voters, like Colorado voters twice before, came to their senses and realized the potential implications of passing the initiative. Certain types of birth control, because they can kill fertilized eggs, might become illegal to obtain. Providing emergency birth control such as the “morning-after pill” to rape victims would almost certainly become illegal. In Vitro fertilization
techniques could become illegal because of the disposal and use of fertilized eggs. Women carrying fertilized eggs might effectively lose their legal rights because they “house” another person. Such an amendment would be unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. It was the very general and selfishly delusional terminology of the initiative that effectively turned off voters and their support. The Personhood pro-life supporters heralded the amendment when first introduced as a no-brainer right wing vote. When the implications of its passing became apparent, it began to lose support from normally conservative followers. The initiative attempted to change too much at once. This made many supporters uncomfortable. Even Republican politicians such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour admitted struggling with “Personhood” before eventually voting for it because he is pro-life. Barbour wanted the wording of the bill to be ironed out in the state legislature before being given to voters. It is this editing and “ironing out” of the initiative which is most dangerous to many pro-choice supporters. Personhood USA has already failed to pass such legislature twice in Colorado and now once in the much more conservative Missis-
sippi. We can now look for more succinct forms of the initiative to reach the voters in other states. Attempts are currently being made to have the initiative put on ballots in Montana, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and California. Personhood USA officials have already said that they may attempt a re-wording of the initiative and reintroduce it in the states where it has already failed. This relentlessness to have their initiative passed should frighten pro-choice advocates. It is easy to identify such bills when they are labeled “Personhood Initiative” or have extreme language. It may be more difficult to identify and rally against such bills if their wording is changed and their support is unified. Voters in the states where such initiatives are already suggested should be wary of attempts by personhood advocates to increase their following. They may do this by supporting legislation that supports abortion access restriction or even by gaining the support of religious groups with anti-abortion stances. The defeat in Mississippi is positive. It makes us think that if such a conservative state can oppose such an initiative it can be done in any state. This may be true in its current form, but without due vigilance we may find ourselves fighting to maintain ground against similar initiatives in the future. CraIG dUNN
reigniting the environmental Concern
JUdy KIM Photography editor
As the 2012 election approaches, presidential candidates debate largely on the topics of social and international concerns. Environmentalism has been thrown to the back burner, and many seemed to have forgotten that the environment still directly affects our everyday lifestyle and our future generations. For example, look at the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill or the BP oil spill disaster. The spill date was on April 20, 2010, and the well was not officially sealed until mid-September of the same year. Nearly six months of unregulated and unaccounted oil covered the shoreline and the top surface of the ocean – and people only cared about what they could see. According to an article written by Abrahm Lustgarten from ProPublica, BP had to use a chemical dissolvent called dispersants to get rid of the surface oil. The solution made by two mixtures containing a certain amount of
toxicity that has been associated with headaches, vomiting and reproductive problems. Not only did this particular environmental catastrophe damage animal and plant life, but it also destroyed the fishing industry and tourism – and it can have extensive damage to the health of the human population in the area. Since then the United States government has continuously allowed BP to drill its product on our soil despite several past offenses – the largest being the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. Several people have called for the debarment of BP, but to cut off the third largest oil company in the world could create devastating repercussions in the global economy. Recently, Republican representatives have proposed a plan to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because they believe that the EPA is destroying small businesses. From the ThinkProgress publication, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said, “I want to replace, not reform EPA, because [the] EPA is made of self-selected bureaucrats who are anti-American jobs, antiAmerican business, anti-state government, anti-local control, and I don’t think you can reeducate them.” First, not only do I find Gingrich’s statement to be extremely outlandish and cringe-worthy, but very ignorant as well. How was he able to say that the bureaucrats were self-selected? The EPA’s Head Administrator is appointed by the president and then approved by the Congress. How is the EPA anti-American? The EPA represents America when disputing with other internation-
al corporations and countries about how they utilize our territory and demand that they respect it – the EPA fights for our health and well-being as a whole. And who said that the EPA is against American businesses? The EPA’s goal has always been plain and simple: to protect our citizens from water, air, pollutions and any other environmental hazardous concerns, never to harm specifically American businesses. If a business is to get in the way of these safety concerns anyway, should they be allowed to operate? I say nay, especially because there are several other businesses out there that are more than willingly to conduct their business with a green sense of mind. Having environmental regulations and requirements is a must in our country, because it is indisputably more important to have the health of our population prioritized above the businesses who are greedily abusing the environment for their own profits. I am not saying that we can manage without businesses operating effectively in our country – I’m just saying that these businesses need to keep the environment in mind because our health and well-being are directly affected by their decisions. It would be nice and actually more helpful to assess presidential candidates if they debated about environmental issues, of how they intend to invest in alternative energy, of what kinds of “green” plans they have, of how they would like to encourage our country to preserve the lands we live on and what they would do personally to ensure that the air we breathe would be as clean as yesterday’s.